Cieľom tejto štúdie je uvedenie Antisthenových rečí Aias a Odysseus do širšieho kontextu sókratovskej literatúry. Výklad vychádza z otázky, či je možné čítať tieto reči z hľadiska sókratovskej dialektiky. Prvá časť pripomína diferenciu medzi rétorikou a dialektikou, ktorú naznačuje Platón v Prótagorovi, keď stavia do protikladu dlhú monologickú reč (makros logos) a krátku dialogickú reč (brachylogia). Druhá časť sa venuje výkladu niektorých Antisthenových zlomkov, ktoré naznačujú, že Antisthenés spájal brachylogiu so skúmaním zdatnosti (areté), ale zároveň kritizoval Platónove pokusy o jej esencialistické uchopenie. Proti Platónovi namieril zrejme aj svoj koncept oikeios logos a tézu o nemožnosti sporu, ktorú by sme mohli uchopiť pomocou sókratovského učenia o škodlivosti nevedenia. Posledná časť sa zaoberá viacerými aspektmi Antisthenových rečí, dáva ich do vzťahu s predošlým výkladom a poukazuje na ich dialektický charakter, ako aj na Antisthenovo osobité poňatie vzťahu medzi rétorikou a dialektikou., The aim of this study is to introduce Antisthenes’ declamations Ajax and Odysseus into the wider context of Socratic literature. The interpretation has as its starting point the question of whether it is possible to read these declamations from the viewpoint of Socratic dialectic. The first part reminds us of the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, which Plato adumbrated in the Protagoras, where the long monological declamation (makros logos) is opposed to the short dialogical declamation (brachulogia). The second part is devoted to the interpretation of some of Antisthenes’ fragments which adumbrate how Antisthenes connects brachulogia with the investigation of virtue (aretē), but at the same time criticised Plato’s attempts to find an essentialist understanding of them. It was against Plato that he evidently aimed his concept oikeios logos and the thesis concerning the impossibility of contradiction, which we might understand with the help of the Socratic doctrine of the harmfulness of unknowing. The last part tackles the various aspects of Antisthenes’ declamations, relates them to the foregoing interpretation and shows their dialectical character, as well as Antisthenes’ peculiar understanding of the relation between rhetoric and dialectic., and Vladislav Suvák.
The article looks at how emotion is represented in Bohemian folk chronicles, i.e. texts of a historiographic character, written by autodidacts - mostly peasants and artisans. At the core of our analysis is the most famous work of this kind, Paměti Františka Jana Vaváka z let 1770-1816 (Memoirs of František Jan Vavák 1770-1816). Other writings from the turn of the 19th century (e.g. those of Václav Jan Mašek, Jan Petr, Ondřej Lukavský) are also considered. Our initial question is: How, and in which contexts, did Czech-speaking authors of the late 18th and early 19th century, having no opportunity to get acquainted with contemporary philosophical theories, express affects? The study shows that the emotions, especially joy and grief, are expressed in a way recommended by early modern rhetoricians (e.g. Cypriano de Soarez or Bernard Lamy): particular figures are associated with particular affects. Though the principle is the same, the figures used by autodidacts differ from those recommended by the rhetoric manuals. Being unable to read Latin, German or French rhetorics, the authors had probably grasped the principles of how to represent affect from their reading, but adapted them according to their own talent and vision. As might be expected given the rural origin and values of the authors, joy is expressed mostly in the context of weather favourable for the harvest, while grief is realised in the context of rising prices and natural disasters., Dmitrij Timofejev., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy